scholarly journals A whole family-based physical activity promotion intervention: findings from the families reporting every step to health (FRESH) pilot randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin M. Guagliano ◽  
Sofie M. Armitage ◽  
Helen Elizabeth Brown ◽  
Emma Coombes ◽  
Francesco Fusco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Physical Activity Promotion ◽  
Full Scale ◽  
Target Sample Size ◽  
Activity Promotion ◽  
Family Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Objectively Measured

Abstract Introduction This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of FRESH (Families Reporting Every Step to Health), a theory-based child-led family physical activity (PA) intervention delivered online. We also assessed the preliminary effectiveness of the intervention on outcomes of interest and whether pre-specified criteria were met to progress to a full-scale definitive trial. Methods In a three-armed randomised pilot trial, 41 families (with a 7–11-year-old index child) were allocated to a: ‘family’ (FAM), ‘pedometer-only’ (PED), or a no-treatment control (CON) arm. The FAM arm received access to the FRESH website, allowing participants to select step challenges to ‘travel’ to target cities around the world, log their steps, and track progress as families virtually globetrot. FAM and PED arms also received family sets of pedometers. All family members could participate in the evaluation. Physical (e.g., fitness, blood pressure), psychosocial (e.g., social support), behavioural (e.g., objectively-measured PA), and economic (e.g., expenditure for PA) data were collected at baseline, 8- and 52-weeks. Results At 8- and 52-weeks, 98 and 88% of families were retained, respectively. Most children liked participating in the study (> 90%) and thought it was fun (> 80%). Compared to the PED (45%) and CON (39%) arms, a higher percentage of children in the FAM (81%) arm reported doing more activities with their family. Adults agreed that FRESH encouraged their family do more PA and made their family more aware of the amount of PA they do. No notable between-group differences were found for childrens’ minutes in moderate-to-vigorous PA. Sizeable changes of 9.4 (95%CI: 0.4, 18.4) and 15.3 (95%CI: 6.0, 24.5) minutes in moderate-to-vigorous PA was found for adults in the FAM group compared to those in the PED or CON groups, respectively. No other notable differences were found. Conclusion This study demonstrates feasibility and acceptability of the FRESH intervention. All progression criteria were at least partially satisfied. However, we failed to recruit the target sample size and did not find a signal of effectiveness on PA particularly long-term or in children. Further refinements are required to progress to a full-scale trial. Trial registration This study was prospectively registered (ISRCTN12789422) on 16/03/2016.

scholarly journals Whole family-based physical activity promotion intervention: the Families Reporting Every Step to Health pilot randomised controlled trial protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e030902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin M Guagliano ◽  
Helen Elizabeth Brown ◽  
Emma Coombes ◽  
Elizabeth S Haines ◽  
Claire Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Physical Activity Promotion ◽  
Activity Promotion ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Family Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionFamily-based physical activity (PA) interventions present a promising avenue to promote children’s activity; however, high-quality experimental research is lacking. This paper describes the protocol for the FRESH (Families Reporting Every Step to Health) pilot trial, a child-led family-based PA intervention delivered online.Methods and analysisFRESH is a three-armed, parallel-group, randomised controlled pilot trial using a 1:1:1 allocation ratio with follow-up assessments at 8 and 52 weeks postbaseline. Families will be eligible if a minimum of one child in school Years 3–6 (aged 7–11 years) and at least one adult responsible for that child are willing to participate. Family members can take part in the intervention irrespective of their participation in the accompanying evaluation and vice versa.Following baseline assessment, families will be randomly allocated to one of three arms: (1) FRESH; (2) pedometer-only or (3) no-intervention control. All family members in the pedometer-only and FRESH arms receive pedometers and generic PA promotion information. FRESH families additionally receive access to the intervention website; allowing participants to select step challenges to ‘travel’ to target cities around the world, log steps and track progress as they virtually globetrot. Control families will receive no treatment. All family members will be eligible to participate in the evaluation with two follow-ups (8 and 52 weeks). Physical (eg, fitness and blood pressure), psychosocial (eg, social support) and behavioural (eg, objectively measured family PA) measures will be collected at each time point. At 8-week follow-up, a mixed methods process evaluation will be conducted (questionnaires and family focus groups) assessing acceptability of the intervention and evaluation. FRESH families’ website engagement will also be explored.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee for the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Cambridge. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conferences and to participating families.Trial registration numberISRCTN12789422

Experiences in physical activity promotion in health care settings for primary prevention in the UK

2014 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Physical Activity Promotion ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Activity Promotion ◽  
Randomised Controlled

In addition to the delivery of primary care services, recent changes to the NHS in the United Kingdom have placed increasing responsibility on GPs for the commissioning of the full range of health services from prevention through to clinical interventions and rehabilitation. Whilst historically there has always been an expectation that primary care professionals were ideally placed to provide support for prevention as well as treatment, their active engagement in the promotion of physical activity has remained largely superficial. With notable exceptions where individuals have a personal interest or commitment, the majority of health professionals tend to limit themselves to peremptory non-specific advice at best, or frequently don’t broach the subject at all. There are a number of reasons for this including increasing time pressures, a general lack of knowledge, limited evidence and concerns about litigation in the event of an adverse exercise induced event. However in the 1990s there was a surge of interest in the emerging “Exercise on Prescription” model where patients could be referred to community based exercise instructors for a structured “prescription” of exercise in community leisure centres. Despite the continuing popularity of the model there remain problems particularly in getting the active support of health professionals who generally cite the same barriers as previously identified. In an attempt to overcome some of these problems Wales established a national exercise referral scheme with an associated randomised controlled trial. The scheme evaluated well and had subsequently evolved with new developments including integration with secondary and tertiary care pathways, accredited training for exercise instructors and exit routes into alternative community based exercise opportunities.

scholarly journals A cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among adolescents aged 13–14 years

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e014419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Elizabeth Brown ◽  
Fiona Whittle ◽  
Stephanie T Jong ◽  
Caroline Croxson ◽  
Stephen J Sharp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Physical Activity Promotion ◽  
Adolescent Physical Activity ◽  
Causal Pathways ◽  
Activity Promotion ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAdolescent physical activity promotion is rarely effective, despite adolescence being critical for preventing physical activity decline. Low adolescent physical activity is likely to last into adulthood, increasing health risks. The Get Others Active (GoActive) intervention is evidence-based and was developed iteratively with adolescents and teachers. This intervention aims to increase physical activity through increased peer support, self-efficacy, group cohesion, self-esteem and friendship quality, and is implemented using a tiered-leadership system. We previously established feasibility in one school and conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) in three schools.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a school-based cluster RCT (CRCT) in 16 secondary schools targeting all year 9 students (n=2400). In eight schools, GoActive will run for two terms: weekly facilitation support from a council-funded intervention facilitator will be offered in term 1, with more distant support in term 2. Tutor groups choose two weekly activities, encouraged by older adolescent mentors and weekly peer leaders. Students gain points for trying new activities; points are entered into a between-class competition. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, interim (week 6), postintervention (week 14–16) and 10-month follow-up (main outcome). The primary outcome will be change from baseline in daily accelerometer-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Secondary outcomes include accelerometer-assessed activity intensities on weekdays/weekends; self-reported physical activity and psychosocial outcomes; cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses; mixed-methods process evaluation integrating information from focus groups and participation logs/questionnaires.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the conduct of the study was gained from the University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee. Given the lack of rigorously evaluated interventions, and the inclusion of objective measurement of physical activity, long-term follow-up and testing of causal pathways, the results of a CRCT of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of GoActive are expected to add substantially to the limited evidence on adolescent physical activity promotion. Workshops will be held with key stakeholders including students, parents, teachers, school governors and government representatives to discuss plans for wider dissemination of the intervention.Trial registration numberISRCTN31583496.

Group-mediated Physical Activity Promotion and Mobility in Sedentary Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Results from the IMPACT-Pilot Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 2068-2077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. Focht ◽  
Matthew J. Garver ◽  
Steven T. Devor ◽  
Justin Dials ◽  
Alexander R. Lucas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Pilot Trial ◽  
Physical Activity Promotion ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Activity Promotion ◽  
Favorable Change ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
The Impact

Objective.To compare the effects of a group-mediated cognitive behavioral exercise intervention (GMCB) with traditional center-based exercise therapy (TRAD) on objectively assessed levels of physical activity (PA) and mobility in sedentary patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods.The Improving Maintenance of Physical Activity in Knee Osteoarthritis Trial-Pilot (IMPACT-P) was a 12-month, 2-arm, single-blind, randomized controlled pilot study designed to compare the effects of GMCB and TRAD on 80 sedentary patients with knee OA with self-reported difficulty in daily activities [mean age 63.5 yrs, 84% women, mean body mass index (BMI) 32.7 kg/m2]. Objective assessments of PA (LIFECORDER Plus Accelerometer) and mobility (400-m walk) were obtained at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months by study personnel blinded to participants’ treatment assignment.Results.Intent to treat 2 (treatment: GMCB and TRAD) × 2 (time: 3 mos and 12 mos) analyses of covariance of controlling for baseline, age, sex, and BMI-adjusted change in the outcomes demonstrated that the GMCB intervention yielded significantly greater increases in PA (p < 0.01) and a nonsignificant yet more favorable improvement in mobility (p = 0.09) relative to TRAD. Partial correlation analyses also revealed that change in PA was significantly correlated with the 400-m walk performance at 3-month (r = −0.51, p < 0.01) and 12-month (r = −0.40, p < 0.01) followup assessments.Conclusion.Findings from the IMPACT-P trial suggest that the GMCB treatment resulted in significantly greater improvement in PA and nonsignificant yet more favorable change in mobility relative to TRAD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document